The Judicial Conceptualization of Culture after Delgamuukw and Van der Peet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author examines the current Canadian approach to the resolution of claims concerning Aboriginal rights and title. Discussion focuses on the Canadian law as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R . v. Van der Peet and Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, as well as its historical development through selected Canadian and English jurisprudence. The author finds the central feature of the Supreme Court of Canada's approach to be the recognition of Aboriginal rights and title on the basis of distinctiveness. However, it is argued that the approach utilizes antiquated logic, which conflicts with contemporary anthropo-logical conceptions of culture. Furthermore, the author argues that the Supreme Court of Canada's emphasis on cultural components detracts from political issues surrounding Crown sovereignty in the context of Aboriginal rights. Consequently, the current Canadian approach to Aboriginal rights and title may lead to future results that are unpredictable and inconsistent. Finally, the author suggests an alternative framework in which claims regarding Aboriginal rights and title may be resolved. Specifically, it is contended that the equitable resolution of Aboriginal claims may ultimately require the recognition of political rather than cultural rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".